Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose non-obvious behavior: the result may include helplines, and the output is a screening that should be framed carefully to the user. It does not describe validation/failure behavior when answer counts are wrong, which is a notable gap for a scoring tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then packs parameter format and output-handling guidance into the rest with no filler. Slightly dense but each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully hints that results may contain helplines and must be presented as screening only. Combined with the answers-format detail, this is complete enough to call and handle the tool correctly, though return structure and error handling remain undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (test and locale are documented), and the description adds real value beyond the schema by specifying the exact answer format per test: nine values 0-3 for PHQ-9 and 33 values 1-6 for SAS. That length/range detail is what the schema's generic integer array lacks.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource ('Score a finished test') that clearly separates this from sibling start_test (which begins a test) and list_tests. An agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'a finished test' implies the prerequisite that a test must already be completed and answers collected, which routes the agent away from start_test. It also gives presentation guidance (helplines, screening-not-diagnosis disclaimer), but does not name an explicit alternative or state what to do if answers are incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.